Take it from someone who lives in a border city, the idea that we’ll end illegal immigration by building walls and fences along the U.S.-Mexican border is as absurd as they come.

Three reasons:

(1) It’s absurdly expensive. Cost estimates for building physical barriers run as high as $1 million per mile. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-CA, the former presidential candidate, likes to brag about how it was his legislation that built a wall near San Diego. But he rarely mentions his other bright idea — to extend the wall along the entire 2,000-mile border with Mexico. Let’s see. 2,000 miles at $1 million per mile = $2 billion. That’s a lot of money to spend to keep out lettuce pickers and rescue Americans from the horror of having to “press 1 for English.”

(2) It’s absurdly naïve to think that someone eager to feed his family and who travels hundreds of miles through Central America and Mexico is going to turn around and head home when he hits the equivalent of a “Do Not Enter” sign on the U.S.-Mexico border. Just ask the experts — the border patrol agents who spend every hour of every shift trying to keep out undocumented border crossers. They’ll tell you, as many have told me, that there’s no wall high enough, deep enough, or long enough to keep out the desperate. They’ll just go over, under, or around it.

(3) And, lastly, it’s absurdly self-defeating to build walls that turn into cages and undermine the one thing that could get illegal immigrants to return home: the pull of family. These people may work in Fresno or Spokane or Indianapolis, but it used to be they could go home for Mother’s Day or Christmas without worrying about getting back. With walls and fences they do worry (they can still get back in — see #2 — but it’ll be expensive and time-consuming), and because so many of them don’t go home they’re not reminded how much they miss home.

No wonder both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton now say they regret their votes in favor of building 700 miles of border fencing. And no wonder John McCain can muster only grudging support for the “goddamned fence.” (He told Vanity Fair that, if the restrictionists were dead-set on it, he’d build their “goddamned fence.”) How long do you suppose enthusiasm like that is going to hold once the heat gets turned up?

And speaking of heat, there is plenty of it now that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has issued waivers to skirt more than 30 laws, many of them environmental, to press ahead with plans to fulfill a Congressional mandate and finish the 700 miles of border fencing this year. Catch the irony: Chertoff went to all this trouble to show immigrants that it’s important to follow the rules, even if he had to break some rules in the process. Already lawsuits have been filed, insisting that Congress exceeded its authority by giving the executive branch so much power.

This whole process is bankrupt. And it’s actually doing more harm than good. The public loves the idea of building walls and fences. Ergo, politicians who want to be loved by the public say they love the idea of building walls and fences. This doesn’t have a thing to do with enforcement or security. It’s all about politics. We should listen to the border patrol agents and spend our resources more wisely such as providing them the tools to do their job more effectively.

Getting tough on the illegal immigration shouldn’t mean being walled off from reality.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union Tribune, a nationally syndicated columnist, a frequent lecturer and a regular contributor to CNN.com.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union Tribune, a nationally syndicated columnist, a frequent lecturer, and a regular contributor to CNN.com.

Click here to view the 73 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

73 Comments, 73 Threads

I’d be more impressed with this article if he provided some quotes from some actual Border Patrol people saying that they didn’t want fences and maybe some suggestions on what would work better. Instead we get what is essentially a defeatist piece — “fences don’t work, so let’s give up”?

Sorry, I’m not buying it.

Build the goddamned fence, Mr. McCain. Or, let’s have a serious debate about doing away with the immigration laws. Don’t let a bunch of people continue to make a mockery of them.

You illuminate the problem very well; however I don’t see that you have offered any reasonable solution to the problem here. How else are we to get the problem of border security under control, in your opinion? John McCain didn’t create the problem of illegal immigration, but you can bet your last 50 centavo piece he’ll get blamed for all manner of ills in Mexico if he does manage to secure the border. I saw a news story on TV recently where the Mexican government was crying about what to do with all those returned deportees, when in actuality they are probably more concerned about the loss of all those US dollar remittances earned here and sent back home each month.

I also live in a near border area in Texas, and it’s not just lettuce pickers we worry about, my friend, it’s the drug runners and car thieves, combined with riffraff of the lowest sort running around and stealing any thing not nailed down. It is a huge problem around here. Mexico is not sending us their best.

[quote]rescue Americans from the horror of having to “press 1 for English.”[/quote] that’s funny,,, instead, how about: “Press 2 to hang up and go learn English”.

Please do not misunderstand me, I’m not against immigration, in fact I am married to an immigrant, but we did it the legal way, the approved way, the official smiled upon way. My wife didn’t sneak across a poorly secured border in the dead of night. Now, if you want to get me into a rant about how legal immigrants are treated by those idjits at USCIS… Well, that’s a subject for another post.

Good luck on your quest for open borders, however I, for one, am against it.

The more inconveniences created for an illegal, the better. There should be nothing convenient or accommodating about breaking laws.

Mexicans need to make their own country habitable. It is against everyone’s interest that America continue to be a pressure relief for Mexican corruption and dysfunction and for America to corrupt its own legal system in the process.

Don’t agree. The reasons are several, but let’s start with one.
A fence serves the purpose of marking limits. There are those who need the reminder. There are reasons that I have doors on my home, and those that lead to the outside are equipped with locks. That fence, that door, those locks, serve to make it clear that passage is on MY terms, not the whims of any passer-by.
Will a fence, any fence, completely halt the invasion that we call illegal immigration? Of course not, any more than bank vaults completely halt bank robberies. But I rather suspect you will find few banks not so equipped.
Let us get this straight. This is OUR country. We have every right to admit, or to refuse to admit, anyone we wish, based on any whim. We owe no one anywhere a reason. We do, in fact, admit more legal immigrants than just about anyone, more than I think wise but that is a separate issue. We certainly do not need apologize for restricting entry.
I would agree that interior enforcement needs to be improved. So do consequences for the continuing invasion. Mexico is the worst offender by far, so bad that I for one would support not only a complete renunciation of NAFTA, but I would be agreeable to a declaration of War as an appropriate response to their long running policy of reconquista.

I work in the legal profession in the greater Los Angeles area. Approximately 85% of my clients are here illegally. It may surprise some that obtaining bogus social security cards and resident alien cards is a very common practice among the illegals. These cards vary in quality but the majority are indistinguishable from the authentic ones. I for one wish our law enforcement would shut down the facilities that produce these documents. It saddens me as a citizen that our basic forms of identification are so flagrantly mocked.

You know that someone uses the word “absurdly” again and again, he is banging the show a la Kruschev rather than making at argument. This article is particularly unsophisticated. I am a lover of Mexico, have spent a great amount of time there, but the system as currently constituted is greatly biased in favor of Mexicans’ ability to come here over citizens of other developing nations. This basic unfairness is reason enough to build the fence.

Two billion dollars for multi-year construction of a long-lasting border fence is actually not that much money. We spend more than that on upgrades and maintenance on canals and waterways.

That some people will get around the fence is not a reason to avoid building it. For crying out loud. They won’t all get around it.

As has been noted, the real problem is conditions in Mexico. Mexico is poor because a small number of rich people consistently identify squeezing the average worker there as the chief way to make their businesses profitable. The wealthy have hiring cartels and businesses there take cooperative action that is prohibited by law in the United States. It is a disfuntional society where the government is weak and easily bought.

Mexico does not allow foreingers to simply walk into Mexico. Look how they treat their own Central American illegal immigrants. They arrest them and throw them in jail.

It is true that America’s illegal immigration problem is self-inflicted to some extent, by American businesses that save money by hiring people who will work for less. However, there are no “jobs that Americans won’t do.” There are many jobs that Americans won’t do for ultra-low wages earned by illegal immigrants who fear deportation. Mexico has to some extent successfully exported their rotten way of doing business.

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens
that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal
aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine,
meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern
border. Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

Does anyone remember the daily bus , market and cafe suicide bombings in Israel ? Well they built a fence and the suicide bombings have ceased.
California is facing a 20 Billion dollar deficit.
Health care for Illegals cost the tax payers one Billion dollars a year. Fifty percent of the students in the Los Angeles Unified School District are children of “Illegal Immigrants” at a cost of 10 I repeat 10 Billion dollars to tax payers. Seventeen percent of the prison population are “Illegals”. It has been estimated it cost California tax payers $9000 a year for EACH “Illegal” in the state.
Do the math the fence is a bargain. We are losing our language. Our Nation is in jeopardy.
We should bill Mexico $9000 for each “Illegal” in America and believe me they would build the fence and patrol it. Let me see $9000 times 12,000,000. WOW. Or we could send Ruben the bill.
American Christian Infidel

A physical fence will be effective because it is used to *manage* where the crossings happen. Eliminating the easy routes and putting the caught ones in jail for a week make the trek really inconvenient.

In either case, the ‘virtual fence’ plans are total bullshit. They spend millions of dollars for linked cameras, drones, and laptops, which will ALL be obsolete in 5 years. That is a worthless giveaway to defense contractors; a physical fence can be sanely maintained.

Complaining about the environmental impact of this fence is totally absurd. Smuggler’s Gultch in San Diego had tons of trash dumped there by illegal immigrants, because there was no fence.

I live in Texas so border security is a huge issue for me. The argument that a fence is not worth the cost is illogical. A fence is an important part of securing our borders but it is true that attempts will be made even with a fence. Making it more difficult to breach or borders will help to curb the influx.

Equally important, however, is eliminating the incentives to enter illegally. We need to end ALL entitlements to illegals-especially free health care and education. Requiring verification of legal status for employment is crucial too. Just look at the success AZ is having.

When illegals depart to their home countries we can finally reform the process of fixing immigration policies.

The author writes: “Take it from someone who lives in a border city, the idea that we’ll end illegal immigration by building walls and fences along the U.S.-Mexican border is as absurd as they come.”

At first, I wanted to respond with, “Ruben, I’ll ‘take it from you’ after all the illegal aliens take everything you own, including your bank account, and you reconsider the economic consequences of your words.”

But then, after I noticed at the end of this apologia to irresponsibility, that the author is “a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union Tribune, a nationally syndicated columnist, a frequent lecturer and a regular contributor to CNN.com,” it made more sense. Sorta like going to La Raza or MEChA for policy advice.

WHY IS PAJAMAS MEDIA ALLOWING SUCH POORLY WRITTEN MATERIAL TO BE PRESENTED ON THEIR SITE?

The fence worked for the Israelis. It will work for us. Obviously, some people will get around the fence, but that is no argument for getting rid of the fence. I suppose speed limits need to go, along with laws on copyright enforcement. People get around them, so they are useless.

Here’s a thought – prohibit transfers of money to Mexico or charge an exorbitant fee. Prosecute businesses who hire illegals relentlessly, and don’t show mercy. Ever. Also, all caught illegals are implanted with an RFID chip before being sent to Mexico.

No illegals, no upscale resturants, no cheap gardeners and domestics, no justification for massive welfare programs. And the Mexican economy disintegrates. Then 20 or 30% of the Mexican population comes over the border looking for food. You think it’s bad now???

The arguments presented by Mr. Navarrette are amazingly weak. Not that one could not argue against a fence, but the reasons cited by Mr. Navarratte are hardly a case against a fence.

#1 As noted by a couple of others above $2 billion is pretty small compared to the estimated costs of mitigating illegal immigration through other means, year by year.
#2 Also as noted by another above, a well constructed fence/wall has been proven elsewhere to help. If well constructed fences do not help, why for example do military installations, businesses, and property owners build fences around their properties?
#3 Has a little bit of merit but much less than Mr. Navarrette makes it out to be. If any current illegal alien is still in the US when a fence is built there ought to be (and should the fence be built there most likely will be) provisions to allow the illegal alien to exit without fear of being imprisoned at the fence (on the way out), as well as clear paths to citizenship, residency, or gaining a work visa for those who qualify and desire such.

This preposterous article chronically and deliberately minimizes the tremedous problems of rampant illegal immigration, and intentionally distorts and scoffs at the solution of fencing without providing any substantive insights. Is this truly the best that bankrupt apologists for illegal Mexican scofflaws can come up with? In any event, it is a disgraceful sample of the corrosive swill peddled by leftists and anti-Americans to further their schemes to destroy this nation by any means. I wonder what PJM is thinking by publishing such sloppy swill!?

In principle I couldn’t agree with you more. Nothing would do my heart more good than seeing half those $100 a plate resturants in SF close because they didn’t have anyone to line cook or do the dishes. And the thought of those rich Obama supporters hiring domestics from the local population in the Bay Area is really funny. “Clean yo’ toilet, Miz Getty, just who you think you talkin’ to B***h”. But the fact remains that 35 million or so Mexicans coming over our Southern border just can’t happen

All these comparisons of the US/Mexico border to the Israeli West Bank Wall show how out of touch with reality the whole debate is. The Southern border is over 2,000 miles long and the most heavily trafficked border (legal & illegal) in the world. Since at least half of the human traffic entering the US are US citizens crossing back into their home nation after conducting economic business in Mexico, and Mexico is our 3rd or 4th largest trading partner, the comparison is way off. Building a security wall in the West Bank (a very short wall) was a no brainer because it was a true security wall, and Israel built no walls in the areas (outside the WB) where they want economic trade to flow. They built a wall only over border areas where there were no trade flows because the Palestinian culture in those areas are cesspools of hatred terrorism.

The proposed US/Mexico border wall is not a pure security fence, since it is mainly to stop people from crossing who we know are not destructive. If you want to show that an analogous border wall to the MEx/US proposed one will work, find a wall that has been constructed between neighbor states that allow that kind of traffic to still flow. Good luck. It doesn’t do much good to squeeze the open areas without squeezing the checkpoints; squeeze the checkpoints and you’re squeezing the legal traffic and making life miserable for the US citizens that run local businesses and they start going under. You’ve got to squeeze some, and believe me security and border wait times are way up from pre-9/11 days. Anyone who doesn’t know that never crosses the border. And I’m fine with that, but the fire-eaters say we haven’t done anything yet and we’ve got to squeeze 5 times harder, despite the fact that terrorist apprehensions are almost always intelligence driven. So why do legal citizens and businesses have to grab their ankles to satisfy the “anti-illegal alien” fire-eaters? Well because they hate international trade too, and it kills two birds with one stone.

Terrorist apprehensions are almost always intelligence driven, but don’t tell that to the “border fence now” crowd. Find another border fence anywhere in the word that functions like you say you want it to, and the West Bank fence is not similar in any way. Sad thing is, that our politicians are listening to these folks who aren’t even informed on borders in general.

Argument #1: Absurdly expensive, is absurd on its face. What is the cost of building a wall compared to annual prison costs, hospital costs, police costs, school costs, sanitation costs, etc. Not to mention the cost of American lives lost or ruined due to illegal immigrant crime including murder, drunk driving, robbery, rape, etc. What does the cost of the wall matter if it keeps out terrorists?

Argument #2: A wall may not keep out all extremely determined young men and terrorists, but it will slow them down. It surely keeps out the elderly, the ill, children and most women, which of course saves us at least that amount of money in hospitals, schools, police, etc.

Argument#3:Basically contradicts argument number 2. Obviously, the wall does work to some extent by your own argument, in that it keeps illegals from going back and forth. If they miss their families enough (the very women, children and elderly who could not pass through due to the wall) then the illegals here will go home permanently.

Do you have a front door? Is it locked? Do you know whom you are letting in to your home before they enter? America is my home and I want to know who is coming in and why.

“the idea that we’ll end illegal immigration by building walls and fences along the U.S.-Mexican border is as absurd as they come.”

I don’t think anyone ever said that constructing the wall would stop illegal immigration, rather I believe the proponents stated that it would slow the flood. In fact walls when constructed properly serve to funnel the travelers to key spot where they can be monitored, searched and if necessary captured by the Border Patrol.
One reason the Israelis have spent the money and time to construct a barrier wall between them and the Palestinians was to prevent further suicide bombers coming in to Israel. Looks like it has worked as I haven’t seen any news reports lately of suicide bombers blowing themselves up in Israel.
In parts of Arizona where I believe a portion of the wall has been constructed the illegal migrants are funneled to key points where the BP can then concentrate their resources rather than spreading them thinly along the entire length of the border.

I wonder if the author of this piece (o.s.) article has locks on his front doors, and if he would mind if I wandered into his house and demanded that he pay for my education and healthcare in exchange for cleaning his commode and sweeping his floors?

Bottom line, fences work, and mitigating the cost of so many here illegally would makes the fence look cheap by comparison, even at a million a mile….in fact, pay me a million a mile to build the fence and I bet I come in under budget. I bet we could even auction off the privilege of building the fence and make money on it.

Go ahead and be a critic. You would not want to come up with a constructive solution to stop Illegal Border Crossing. The American people want the Illegal Border Crossing to STOP. The solution to the problem is in that demand. The method is immaterial. The Illegal Crossing must STOP. North Korea STOPS Illegal Border Crossings. What the US needs to do is look at the North Korean success and copy it.

“good fences make good neighbors” was obviously not penned by open borders advocate roberto frosto. let’s put up the wall, just like israel did, and watch the violence and crime decline. here’s the basic economics of immigration enforcement: some unskilled illegal construction site guy works for $7 per hour cash off the books, bumps an american who also worked unskilled for $12 hourly on the books. the illegal’s family qualifies for food stamps due to no household income , the unemployed american’s family also qualifies for food stamps, plus unemployment compensation. this is paid for by you and me and other taxpayers every april 15th. cheap labor my a**! this is $35 per hour all considered bottom line.

Very funny, Ruben. In life, one often decides something will work, or will not, depending on one’s predisposition. Certainly, walls do not work. And a leg on a three legged stool does not work. But, it does work quite well, if the other two legs are also employed.

Walls have been used since history began. They have always worked effectively if well built, maintained, and patrolled. Walls so employed work infinitely better than simply patrolling a border, without physical impediments to illegal transgressions.

The real opposition is from those who use every excuse to deny the utility of physical barriers, instead of honestly stating that they sympathize with illegal immigration, or who do not have the courage to openly oppose the violation of our sovereign borders.

For shame, Ruben. As “…someone who lives in a border city,” you should know better.

As many here have already pointed out, the fence will not solve the problem, but it will put one serious dent into it. Israeli’s decreased terrorist attacks by 90%+, so why wouldn’t we accomplish nearly the same result?
The overall real costs of illegal aliens far exceeds any cost for the fence, to maintain it,
or to patrol it effectively.
Its amazing how many say it won;y work, yet where we have it, it does work. Its also amazing to say it won’t work, when we have not actually built all that much of it.
Will some get through.. of course! BUT, many will be caught & returned since BP Agents will be able to focus more on those points of entry some get in through.
The real savings to America will also show up in the reduction of the illegal drug trade. And that trade may be why the fence is not being built. Many of our so-called elite citizens want that trade to continue as they make back door profits from it, despite the harm those drugs are doing to their fellow citizens.
Who is profiting from the “LEGAL” commerce going on between the legal port of entry gates?
Someone is making an awful lot of money. I suspect some who oppose the fence may be part of that profit system.
There is very little LEGAL commerce going on between the legal port of entry gates. So those who talk about hurting their economy are telling us they are profiting from the illegal trade going on, whether its drugs, stolen property, or human trafficking.
Those employing illegal aliens are exploiting them & if allowed to continue their games, they will drive down wages for ALL Americans & hence, ALL workers no matter where they are from. The governments seeking entry for their poor citizens should be spending their money trying to work within our system to figure out how to legally bring in temporary workers. But what we get are governments providing methods to circumvent our laws, & to illegally influence our political system. If we interfered as they are, they would be at the UN calling us imperialists, as usual!
Sorry, but until illegal aliens go home & we have a secure border, those seeking just to work for their families will get little sympathy from me & I will expend efforts to have the law on their backs at every turn!
The fence will solve up to 90% of the problem & that is why many oppose it. We are America, NOT a one world order that socialists run!

> North Korea STOPS Illegal Border Crossings. What the US needs to do is look at the North Korean success and copy it.

North Korea does not stop illegal border crossings. Who told you they do? China trys to find them to turn them over for torture and death in violation of international treaties. There are people starving in mountainous hideouts rather than go back. Thanks for playing, but I’m still waiting an an example of a border fence even remotely similar to the one proposed for TX that accomplishes what its proponents claim. There aren’t any. It is without precedent.

BTW, people here seem oblivious to the fact that most of the TX border is abutted by private land. The government will have to claim large chunks of TX land by emminent domain to build the proposed fence, because ranchers (and private colleges) will have their land split by the fence, thereby leaving a no man’s land between the Rio Grande and their property, which would be of no use to them anymore. Lawsuits to do al this are pending now. Conservatives FOR emminent domain! Yeah, baby, yeah! This is where someone calls me and “open borders” guy for suggesting that claiming others property for a fence whose efficacy for the proposed task is dubious and without precedent is wrong. And have you heard of corruption in the border patrol? Those in Arizona want to run a fence over federal land? Have at it. But you want to experiment and prove that TX/Mexico border is just like the West Bank? When you find out it isn’t, whose going to give those folks their land back? They won’t get it back. The government will own it and they won’t give it back.

Restrictionist conservatives have lost their minds, although I prefer to account for it as ignorance. That is at least pardonable. The less you know about a problem, the easier it seems to fix it. Please tell me conservatives still think acquiring other’s property is wrong. Someone please tell me that.

Mark, I have known border ranchers in TX and I’d wager they’d gladly give up a bit of land if it promised to cut down on the slew of illegals crossing their land and forcing them to hide in their houses at night. Are you actually saying that a huge wall, patrolled at regular intervals would not stem the flow of illegals?

kender: Texas ranchers who would “gladly give up their land”? They ALL need to gladly give up their land, not some. And who said they were all ranchers? Some are small businesses, some large, and at least one is a university, my former employer. Funny thing is, I’ve walked that campus for hours at all times and seasons and I’ve never seen an illegal cross onto university campus. It would be a stupid place to cross. There are lots of places that are relatively open that do not have problems with illegals crossing.

> Are you actually saying that a huge wall, patrolled at regular intervals would not stem the flow of illegals?

At current and reasonable staffing levels, yes. How many border patrol agents do you think would be required to patrol 2,000+ miles are “regular intervals? A lot larger force than we have now, and it has tripled in the last few years. Do you think corruption may be a problem with a low-paid force of border patrol officers and drug money flowing? Yep. Already is. The army and marines gets high quality people for many reasons, but the type of person who would want to watch a few mile section of fence and collect a pension is bad news.

> I have known border ranchers in TX and I’d wager they’d gladly give up a bit of land if it promised to cut down on the slew of illegals crossing their land and forcing them to hide in their houses at night.

kender: You have no skin in the game do you? You’d lose that wager. The idea that all landowners have the same problems as the most vocal Arizona ranchers is false. Arizona can do whatever it wants, I don’t give a rat’s behind, but if they think they can dictate what happens in TX, they’ve got another thing coming. You’ll fight to the last Texan over your border fence, right?

Meanwhile the Justice Department has over 100 lawsuits against landowners for access to their property so they can decide how much private land they are going to claim. Meanwhile, you decide fence = progress, no fence = no progress. Yet illegal apprehensions (traditional measure for 60 years) are way down for the last two years with no fence, and the housing bubble pop is taking it down even more since many of them were participating in the housing construction craze. Illegal immigration has always risen and fallen with the US economy. Still, you want our land to satisfy your quest for progress! Then after the fence is built you’ll tell us the bad news. Not enough guards to patrol it to make it effective. So we triple the force again, and now we’ve got tens of thousands of low-paid security guards roaming our property with guns.

And you know what? You’re not done yet screwing us. Because most illegal aliens cross LEGALLY. So your army of border agents won’t help that, while they make my life miserable and your full court border press makes my business difficult and erodes my profits, and I have nothing to do with illegal aliens. But you’ll happily kill my livlihood to get a fence so you’ll feel you’re solving problems you wouldn’t even know about if you didn’t hear it on the news.

Hint to feds: the restrictionists will give you no credit when you fail to stem illegal immigration. No E for effort, nothing. They’ll claim you didn’t have your heart in it all along after it fails.

Don’t you wish you could, waive EPA regulations to buy a home or conduct business? Sorry, that’s reserved for the feds. And you know who gave homeland security the authority to waive any and all laws necessary? The Real ID ACT. Remember when that was enacted? No? Oh, right. That’s because it was attached as a rider to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 by J. Sensenbrenner after the Real ID Act bill failed to pass the Senate. Can you say “Dead of Night?” Sure you can. Where were all the restrictionists worried about bills passed without debate when you really need them? Nah, they aren’t really worried about that. The Real ID Act is the evidence. They aren’t worried about debate, private property, not much of anything I can see except progress on illegal immigration, and they can’t ever see any, much less define it.

Building a fence on the border might not be the best way to cut down on illegal immigration but the thing about a fence is that we can go out and see if the government actually built the thing or if they are just lieing to us about border security just like the last 40 years of government officials have lied to us when they said that they were enforcing the laws against illegal immigration.

The best way to deal with the issue would be to enforce the laws that are on the books and to change those laws if we don’t like the results. The problem is that our elected officials have not done that for decades and I don’t think that they are about to start enforcing and obeying the law now.

Gilligan: So you don’t believe building a fence will work, but we should build it because it is evidence that the government is “doing something”. And when it fails you’ll claim it failed because the government lied to you. You’ll claim bad faith then as now rather than face the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about and you don’t understand the problem and want a solution that costs you nothing. Meanwhile people that live on the border should like it that their lives are affected by the rules imposed from above by politicians chasing the fool’s gold of your votes, all the while you call them liers even after doing what you want.

This is truly pathetic. I can’t believe you’re not ashamed of this cynical view.

Here is a little thought experiment. Imagine that Los Angeles in 20 years is almost entirely Hispanic, mostly from Mexico. Imagine almost all of the institutions, legal and cultural are controlled by Hispanics, and that Los Angeles County is almost entirely Hispanic except for a large, but still minority Asian community, mostly from China.

But now imagine that the port of LA and Long Beach are largely controlled by Chinese Americans, and they are bringing in, illegally, hundreds of thousands of poor, Chinese immigrants each year who work for 1/4 of what the Mexicans will work for, and, as a result, are deeply undercutting the wages and jobs of what have been traditional Mexican occupations like construction and light industrial and manufacturing. Further, the huge influx of Chinese illegals is dislocating whole neighborhoods and causing tremendous strains on the already overburdened infrastructure as they move into Hispanic parts of LA.

Does anyone seriously believe that today’s tribal apologists for all the Hispanic illegals, once comfortably in power, at the top of the political and cultural food chain of Southern California would be forwarding the same arguments they are now on behalf of Chinese illegals? What if the Chinese leadership made jokes about colonizing all of California for China and drew maps showing such an eventuality? What if the Chinese political class routinely portrayed the Hispanics as fat and lazy and too rich to work hard, and applauded all the Chinese illegals as devoted to their families and tremendously hard-working? Do you still think the current crop of Hispanic “activists” would be writing sympathetic articles about the dear, Chinese illegals in the LA Times? What if the Chinese formed fearsome, violent street gangs to defend their turf, and demanded that the Chinese language be recognized at all levels of society? Still think the Hispanic tribalists would be demanding that the US should have open borders?

Just change the identities around and you have one of the greatest hypocritical positions in recent memory. The Hispanic tribalists are for themselves at the expense of their competition; they support “open borders” because of their geographical advantage to bum-rush the gates. The more Hispanics who can get in illegally will mean fewer Asians can get in through legal channels. The real racists here are the Hispanics who argue, essentially, that Mexicans and Central Americans have a more essential demand to a shot at the good life than do people from Asia or Africa, even if the people from other nations and races and cultures have a superior skill set and can contribute much more to the overall wealth of the US.

A couple of points for you.
1) Having read most of the posts here, the vast majority seem to support the concept of, and in most cases, the reality of a wall.

2) Did not see much in the way of discussion on the real issue with the wall: That it is but one component in an anti-illegal immigrant program. When combined with things like employer-enforcement, the wall becomes much more effective. A wall, in and of itself, won’t and can’t stop everything. But, as many of your posters have noted, at least it’s a start.

Ruben, America is a country of immigrants. But, America can only support so much – there is a practical limit to immigration in time. The problem at the moment is that there is not much restraint of the flow from Mexico (face it, Mexico is the vast violator here, if for not other reasons than an extremely poor economy (for the masses, that is) and due to physical juxtaposition).

What America is NOT interested in is bringing the country’s hard-earned life style, earned by the hard work of immigrants over many generations, down to a substantially lower level by having to absorb too many very, very poor immigrants in too short a time.

As said previously, the border fence is at least a start in helping stem this unbridled flow.

Spain has land on the north coast of Africa bordering Morocco. Spain has a double fence, 20 feet high, topped with razor wire to keep illegals out. Spanish police shoot to kill. For the most part the illegals avoid going through Spain and take leaky boats to Italy.

Question to Navarrette: Why is it worse if the Department of Homeland Security issues waivers so that DHS can skirt Federal law, than it is when Mexicans illegally move here and commit fraud to get jobs?

Mark, you desperately need a reality check. The illegals are wreaking havoc in our land. We really need to build a border wall, patrol it, and somehow learn how to really enforce it. Otherwise our grand children will need to learn Spanish as a 1st language, ’cause the U S of ‘merica will have ceased to exist as we know it today.

Bill O’Reilly has a pinheads or patriots deal going,,, Mark, IMHO, qualifies as a pinhead here.

John: Ad hominem attacks are fallacious, and you aren’t disputing any facts to argue over anyway. I didn’t say there was no problem, there obviously is. I’m saying the fence won’t solve it. The US government’s own studies show that at least 40% of illegals in the US are visa overstays, which means that the border patrol let them in themselves. That’s right, the border patrol let them in. Let that sink in for a few minutes and then tell me your fence with an army to patrol it will solve the problem.

uburoisc — Why wait 20 years? This is already happening in Los Angeles. It is a “sanctuary city” — the open borders “La Raza” Mayor Villaraigosa of our fair city is fighting tooth and nail to make sure the tsunami of illegals storming our city find it a warm cuddly reflection of whatever bunghole they came from origninally — He scuttles every attempt by ICE or the FED to clamp down — he resists with the entire city infrastructure all attempts to get a hold of the problem — he swept into office by the overwhelming support of his constituents — Mexicans ( both illegals and “legals” ) so that now entire swaths of this city are no-go zones for Americans — Many sections of LA are now completely indistinguishable from Tijuana, and this was not the case a mere 5 years ago. The invasion is only picking up steam, and your scenario, or most parts of it, are already upon us.

Actually, the main problem is that the “illegal immigrants” that everyone talks about are hardly all coming trekking across the border through illegal, back doors.

A very large percentage actually arrive here “legally” through visas for business and travel and stay.

That should have been his point. So, when you are trying to compare the cost of a fence to the cost of educating, caring for, etc “illegals” you have to actually know how much the fence is going to impact the number of “illegals” using public services. My quick, back of the envelope figures say “not as much as you wish.” Not enough to make that fence viable and worthwhile.

You want this guy to present you with a “solution”? That’s not his job. he’s writing an opinion, not making policy. However, the one policy that had some worth to it, that provided legal means of entry and exit, insured a decent labor base and didn’t smack of a really bad political move was nixed by the “security at any cost” crowd and we were left with nothing but a giant diplomatic headache.

Yes, building a fence and comparing Mexico and the US with the Israel/Palestinian terrorist problem has very bad diplomatic overtones – Mexico is not a terrorist state, we are not at war with the state of Mexico even if it has a bunch of nasty criminals who like to shoot up our border.

> if 40% are visa overstays then 60% aren’t. 60% of 20,000,000 is 12,000,000. I’ll settle for a reduction of 12 million illegals.

Ken: You’ll “settle” for something that you think costs you nothing. But if you were a normal person who had something to lose, like we do on the border, you’d want a cost benefit analysis. Since you don’t cross the border, or know anyone who lives in South Texas, you don’t care. Tell you what, you give up what you own and have labored for a couple of decades. Then tell me how easy it is to “settle” for a reduction with the sort of cost-benefit analysis you just did. But I’ll tell you what’s wrong with your answer.

Illegal border crossings are down 30%+ this year alone, and we’ve seen similar declines in the last two years with no fence even before the housing bubble popped (I don’t object to short fences in certain areas as there are now). We can get more without taking people’s land and water rights and making life miserable for US citizens who live near the SW border like me. 60% is the theoretical maximum where the assumption is that a) the fence is 100% effective in stopping physical intrusions, b) the crossing rate were not declining (they are), and c) no other measures were taken (they are being taken). So point “a” merely begs the question, but the bottom line is that the payoff won’t even be close to 60%. Would you have Texans give up their land for 10-20% reduction?

Admit it, you didn’t even know that the fence required claiming private land against by imminent domain because it wasn’t on TV or talk radio. And you know nothing of dramatic decreases for the same reasons. And you didn’t know that 40% of illegals cross legally. But you won’t admit any of this will you? Nope. You’ll take someone else’s land anyway though, because the solution seems so simple.

> Yes, building a fence and comparing Mexico and the US with the Israel/Palestinian terrorist problem has very bad diplomatic overtones – Mexico is not a terrorist state, we are not at war with the state of Mexico even if it has a bunch of nasty criminals who like to shoot up our border.

kat-missouri: Quite right. I’d also add that Mexico elected a pro-American president who is asking for our help to defeat narco-terrorists who terrorize both sides of the border. We need to work with Mexico in security / military partnership just like we have with Colombia. Mexico is under attack and fighting back very hard, and defeating these thugs will take both countries to do. Mexico is fighting very hard, and we abandon them at our peril. There is no reason to see a friendly nation that is your 3rd largest trading partner as an enemy.

Navarrette is way off the beam on this one. He does not seem to comprehend that Americans want to protect their land from invasion; an invasion that is on the verge of destroying the national integrity of the USA.

Apart from building the fence, Homeland Security should back it up 100 yards of razor wire. The Federal Government should also stop all federal funding to sanctuary cities/towns and include jail time as part of the penalty for employing illegal aliens.

1) 1 million per mile is NOT absurdly expensive. Compare this with a mile of highway and you will see what I mean.

2) The point is to dissuade that person from ever leaving home. This is the biggest reason FOR a “wall”. If we don’t respect our border enough to take reasonable and obvious measures to enforce it, we have no reason to expect others to. It’s not a matter of putting up a do not enter sign. It’s a matter of taking down the current de facto welcome sign.

3) If they missed home so much they would return and not come back. No, they are leaving home to come here in increasing, not decreasing, numbers with the current border. Once again, the point is to discourage the next million – if they can’t cross the border as they please, crossing the border the first time is less advantageous.

Nobody said a wall would get rid of illegals already here. Other measures are needed for that. And the wall would not be a cage – they are free to go at any time.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. slays a whole boatload of strawmen in the process of avoiding the issue of ILLEGAL aliens.
Forget a fence, Build a Wall. I’m talking 30 meters (100 Ft.) high and wide enough to put a 4 lane highway on top. Do it with tilt up construction and fill dirt dug by Convicts and your cost will be less then 1 Million per mile, even if you pay the Convicts a dime a day. The fill dirt comes from the trench in front of the wall.
Rubin is looking for a Silver Bullet. A single solution that is quick and easy. NO SUCH THING.
Along with the wall, which will not just slow down illegals but be a tourist attraction as well as a deterrent to crime, an overhaul of the immigration process is needed as well as serious criminal penalties for employers.
Make it easier to get to America legally, and dangerous to employ illegals and the problem is solved. Ignoring it as Rubin suggests is NOT the answer.

Instead of spending so much time complaining about why the US doesn’t want to take in more Mexicans, which is Ruben’s long-running riff on illegal immigration, why isn’t he, along with other journalists, spending more time writing about why Mexico is such a mess that so many people want to leave? Why is it forever our fault that we don’t want to be their safety valve and welfare system?

That’s a country with a huge tourism industry, agriculture, oil, manufacturing and acccess to two very rich markets via NAFTA. I’ve heard that Mexico is the world’s richest Third World country. It shouldn’t be a Third World country and that is NOT the fault of the US. Canada is also in the shadow of the US. Why isn’t it a basket case with massive human outflows too? Why don’t Mexicans have the pride to stay home and fight for the country they claim to love, instead of running away? Ever wonder, Ruben?

However it got that way, why ever it is that way, isn’t there a point at which they become ashamed of their own part in letting their country go on as it does by running away? You know, if you’re not part of the solution …

Instead of marching here, why don’t they march there? It’s their country. Why don’t they care enough? When do you start asking that, Ruben? Your questions are all about why Americans care about their country, not why Mexicans don’t. Or should I conclude that Mexico isn’t actually worth fighting for, to its people?

An example from real recent history. It wasn’t long ago that South Korea was poor, isolated and ruled by brutal military regimes. Strikes were broken by lethal force. Dissidents were locked up. Many vanished. Look up the Kwangju incident. It was less than 30 years ago.

The South Koreans, surrounded by icy waters and with only North Korea next door, had nowhere to run. Young males were not even physically allowed to leave the country until they’d done 3 years in the army. This was not 100 years ago; it was into the 80s. The South Koreans had to stay and fight. And they did.

And next to them, Ruben, the Mexicans are a bunch of wimps. I don’t respect quitters, and that’s what they are, and I don’t care if they work 60 hours a week at KFC. And I don’t care if they ran across a desert to get to America. That’s easier than staying and fighting for your country — like the South Koreans had to and did. Crossing the desert may take a few days. The trip to a better Mexico takes years, maybe a lifetime. They won’t do it.

South Koreans worked like the proverbial dogs for a generation and made their country rich. Then they forced their government to stand back and give them more freedom. It isn’t perfect, no country is, but if they did it, why can’t the Mexicans?

I’m tired of them crowding into my country and their surrogates like you complaining forever that we don’t do enough, don’t take enough, etc. Ten million determined Mexicans at home instead of the US could change their country. Instead, they claim to be proud of being Mexicans but abandon their country as soon as they can. They want my respect? Stay home, fight for your country and earn respect.

And as for the wall, Ruben: if you make it harder to come, harder to stay and harder to work, fewer will come and more will go. They will go one or a few at a time, as they came. The WSJ articles this past week prove that.

Do people just come and go freely at the San Diego Union — or do they have to go through certain doors with guards and show some kind of ID? Most likely, the latter. Do people who don’t work there, need permission to come in? Most likely, the latter. If they come in, can they just stay forever and take up a job, or do they need to leave when the purpose of their visit ends and apply for a job from the outside, if they want one? A newspaper is there for the public, right? So why not throw the doors open? People will leave when they get tired of it, right? And if it throws the newsroom into turmoil and reporters find their desks occupied by people who don’t work there, well, why be so possessive and territorial? Right there, you see how absurd this is.

Translation: Screw those Texan Mexican-loving bastards! What’s the point of laws when the country’s going to hell! And the country is going to hell, as everybody knows. Everybody who watches TV knows it; everybody who listens to the radio knows it. Everybody! Everybody! It’s going to hell! And we won’t let that happen! No, sir! So if a few hundred US citizens and their families have to give up their hard earned property and businesses for a border wall, they should understand that it’s for the good of people like me – who know the country is going to hell! People that can’t see it are stupid, and they don’t deserve to have any possessions.

Haven’t those Texan property owners seen that Star-Trek flick “Wrath of Khan”? The good of their “one” is nothing compared to the good of our “many”. Now that’s real ethics! Just a few hundred people can’t stand in the way of the good of all. That’s not right!

Funny how people who claim to be defending the rule of law seem to always need to break the law and steal others property to force their version of lawfulness on law abiding citizens. And how the Constitution is suddenly a “living document” when you know what’s best for everyone, right?

Well sorry folks, but this is going to take a while to wind through the courts. But you can pass the time inventing conspiracy theories on why there isn’t a fence. It makes the time pass much faster, though it makes you crazy. And it’ll make you crazier yet if those wily Texan Mexican-loving bastards succeed in defending their property long enough for congress to reverse itself on the fence, which they may. Why don’t y’all do like the movie stars do and threaten to move to Europe? They don’t do it, but some of the folks in this thread should have the decency to pretend to want to. If you’d sacrifice your property and possessions and start over at least I’d think you were serious about sacrificing for the good of the country. So why don’t you go first?

Ruben Navarrette is using a lot of words trying to sound literate and logical. Too bad for him but his words don’t make any sense at all. All he is doing is making assumptions and then trying to convince the reader they are facts.

If walls are so absurd, then why do all those liberal politicians live behind walls? They do that because walls protect them. If people can’t get over the wall they have to stay on their side of it. Digging under a wall takes time and can be detected very easily.

When people know about the wall and that it is impenetrable, they won’t take the trouble to get to it. It is a tragedy that countries treat their people so poorly. That is not a reason why I should deprive my own of the things they need. I may invite people to my home and share my food and some times even put them up for a bit to help out. But, if more strangers show up and demand things form me that I can not give, I have the right to turn them away.

The pull of family only gets us more illegal trespassers. The Daily News interviewed a woman who was in this country illegally for 2 years. Her husband was here illegally for 28 years. In that time he managed to sneak most of his and his wife’s family to this country. Neither one of them was fluent in English. The whole family is on welfare. They get section 8 housing, food stamps, and free medical. They are not stupid. Her sister has moved to the Deep South because her welfare will go further. We are the stupid ones for putting up it.

Illegal trespassers are straining our social services to the breaking point. Latest figures show that 80 hospitals have had to close because they can’t afford to provide for illegal trespassers. This has put legal citizens in jeopardy. In the case of an accident it may take an extra 30 minutes or more to get emergency care. That delay will often kill the injured.

Mr. Navarrette is putting the welfare of foreigners ahead of all Americans. In the end the open boarders he advocates will help no one. The reason being, we will run out of resources. Mr. Navarrette is wrong in all his assumptions, but I think he knows that. He is just pushing an agenda with out regard to the welfare of this country.

> When people know about the wall and that it is impenetrable, they won’t take the trouble to get to it.

Literally hundreds of millions of US citizens and billions of commerce cross that border every day. So you want to take Texan’s (and others) private property, destroy our local economy, and limit our freedom to travel? And if you come back and say “oh all that can flow across this impenetrable barrier, no problem there”, then I’ll teach you a few well-known facts about security you apparently don’t know. Then again, since if you poke most restrictionist fire-eaters you find you’ll get anti-international trader as well, you may just say “So what, I don’t like international trade either”.

Red Pill = “Mark’s a crybaby for claiming stealing private property is wrong. Oh and (whispers) … he loves sheap laber and hires illegals, why else would he be oppose a fence? I mean, everyone knows principles are overrated.”

Why do you think the Supreme Court’s stance on imminent domain caused such an uproar a few years ago and spawned many states to form legislation to counteract it? I’ll tell you why, though it is embarrassingly obvious. Because if the government takes land, it will take more land and no one’s land is safe. Wow, what a concept!

If people thought like y’all did they’d say “Well governments sometimes need to take private property to accomplish goals I agree with, but I’m sure they wouldn’t claim private property when I don’t agree with the goal, and they certainly would never take mine.”

> There is very little LEGAL commerce going on between the legal port of entry gates. So those who talk about hurting their economy are telling us they are profiting from the illegal trade going on, whether its drugs, stolen property, or human trafficking.

Wow, I missed this from days ago (Apr 8th) on this thread. This is one of the most ignorant things I’ve ever heard. Mexico is our 3rd largest trading partner. US/Mexican trade is about 300 billion dollars now and climbing at about 15% a year. It mostly crosses in trucks right over those points of entry you speak of.

Mark, the interstate highway system costs about a million dollars per mile to build. It might be more. How many miles of interstate does the US have? How do you think that the US federal government takes possession of land for interstate highways? It wouldn’t be through the process of eminent domain would it? I know that it is a tragedy for everyone whose property is taken. And I’m sorry about it. But it improves the value of all the other land that is served by the shared resource.

Assuming that you’re telling the truth about owning border property, if you want to allow free passage through your land then find some way to have a border gate on your property and a road through it and then maybe you can build a gas station and a restaurant and rake the money in, so long as you allow the customs and border control agents at the gate to protect the rest of the US behind your property. That way you can have easy access to the Rio Grande side of your fence. How about it?

Wolf: I never said emminent domain was illegitimate, I don’t think that, and I don’t know anyone who thinks that outside of the nutroot fringe. The question is always, as in this thread, whether it is justified or not.

You’ll find that virtually no full-fence proponents are willing to defend the idea that a fence will solve the problem of illegal immigration in any reasonable sense. They assert it as a solution, but when pressed they cheerfully back down and admit that it is only a “first step” with stiff employer sanctions (that may never be passed) and a massive expansion of federal law enforcement of one sort or another (which may never happen). And some merely offer that it will provide ourselves with evidence “that the government is trying to solve the problem”. And if wishes were horses beggars would ride.

The Interstate Highway System came out of long study and Eisenhower himself even had taken part in the U.S. Army’s first transcontinental convoy in 1919. In 1944 the legislation was enacted, in 1955 after joint action of State highway agencies, subject to approval by the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads, the highway system was mapped out. And Eisenhower (now president) in 1954 proposed a program to fund this highway plan that had been vetted fully by all parties traditionally (and legally) required by the US system of government. And because of this, full state cooperation and participation was obtained all the way through. The states were full participants every step of the way, and hence fully on board for the highway system. Federalism is a beautiful thing. And some people had to give up there land as the last step to completion of a large plan fully approved and legitimized by US citizens through their representatives.

Full border fence advocates have not:

-Sought or obtained any knowledge of border areas
-Studied the problem with any depth or evaluated the efficacy of alternatives
-Not sought state participation at any level
-Not sought to have their fence proposals reviewed nor participation sought that would even hint of the traditional forms of legitimacy

So you see Wolf, if you want Texans to give up their land as they did for the highway system, you’ll need to offer a lot more than merely federal legislation hurried through before an election with no funding (fence act), supported by novel rules tacked onto emergency funding bills that were not debated at all (Real ID Act) that most Americans have never even heard of.

You analogy to the Interstate Highway System fails, because you want to erect a fence that affects:

- The most heavily trafficked border in the world for legal traffic …
- that runs between us and our our 3rd largest (recently 8th) trading partner …
-Hundreds of millions of US citizens that cross per day …
-Fence proponents are not willing to predict any concrete forms of success
-That requires Texans to give up private land as a *starting point* before other measures fence proponents claim are necessary are enacted.

Well not on my watch. Ike you ain’t. Why don’t you get in place all these laws your camp claims is necessary for success to stop illegals that require democratic debate and legislation before you start claiming land? Is that unreasonable? No.

So see you in court my friend. We are a nation of law abiding citizens, and we have ways of doing things that you seem to have forgotten. Just because Ike did something the right way does not legitimize any old federal action. Restrictionists know that they can’t get what they want done through traditional legislative means, so they resort to populism supported by bitter conspiracy theories. Good luck with that.

Wolf, so I hope you see now that I don’t oppose the principle of eminent domain. I never said that but no one engaged me on the topic so I never got that far.

But you misunderstand again that I “want to allow free passage through [my] land”. First, I have family, friends, citizens in the community I know, and former employers who own property on both sides of the South Texas border, so it isn’t about “my land”. Second, none of the people and organizations that I know allow free transit on their land. They vigourously oppose it. One, a public university, even has a private security force to police it, though in the many hours, days, and nights I have walked the campus have I ever seen illegals cross. Probably because it would be stupid to cross there. But the mental image people have of the Texas border is misinformed. Some places in California and Arizona I think have all kinds of trouble and they can put up a fence if it helps there. But don’t tell me all Texans need a fence everywhere like CA and AZ have somewhere. That’s mindless, and infringes up constitutional rights without sufficient justification. I’ve lived in CA too, and I’ve learned to never underestimate the ignorance and animosity of Californians towards Texas.

So I need a fence with federal agents patrolling it when there was no problem on my land before, and the feds have no need to show there is/was a problem with illegality on my land to oppose their solution?

Our immigration laws are broken, and they need reform. You’re right, legal immigration is related to illegal immigration. But now you’re at odds with most of the people in this thread, too bad for you. The country is going to Hell, don’t you know?

My only disagreement with you, unless you’ve changed your view as stated in the link above, is that the people wanting to claim private land don’t seem to be informed at all on border issues, immigration issues, life on the border, business on the border, trade through the border, how the Texas border differs from CA and AZ, or trade in general or borders in general. Surely one must know *something* before one’s opinion deserves to be acted upon when it entails trumping the constitutional rights of another. Is that unreasonable?

I agree that walls alone won’t solve the problem;however fining someone who hires illegal aliens 100,000 per employee might do it.That’s euros by the way, The plutocracy has driven down the value of the dollar to mexican peso levels as part of nafta.